Sounds like B.S. No other western law enforcement agency (as verses secret service) has assassins working for them, they're mission is to take people into custody, not kill them. Notice that the guy's boss died before the publicity campaign and the other 250 'cleaners' are dead or missing. I smell serious Bullshido.

Here is a paragraph from the article and its footnotes.

"It wasn't the first time Interpol worked above the law in the United States. In Steinberg v. Interpol (1981) the District of Columbia federal appellate court found that "Interpol appears to occupy a rather ambiguous and shadowy existence in this country. It claims not to exist in the United States, yet it...defames American citizens in the United States as well as elsewhere."34 The court cited a memorandum dated 6 June 1979, from Interpol Director John E. Ingersoll to John Warner, Chief, Strategic Intelligence Office: "The Secretariat consists of international police officers who have given up their allegiance to their individual countries for the term assigned to Interpol."35

[Ed: this wasn't working above the law numbnuts, Steinburg was claiming that Interpol had committed a civil tort of libel against him, not that they had carried out a criminal offense. Secondly the decision I've posted below DID NOT EXPLICITLY REFER TO ANY MEMORANDUM FROM INGERSOLL TO WARNER. This memo may have been contained in the briefs submitted to the court but the court did not cite it by name. Notice that footnote 35 is actually to a book by Anderson and not this court decision. The author however implies in the main body of his article that footnote 35 is quoting from a court decision.]

"34) August Reinisch. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS BEFORE NATIONAL COURTS. (Cambridge University Press, 2000): pp. 154, 170. Although the US participated in the work of Interpol, the Districts of Columbia federal appellate court expressly noted that the "United States is not party to any international agreement or treaty defining Interpol's status". 672 F. 2d 927, note 1 (DC Cir. 1981).

35) Malcolm Anderson, et al. POLICING THE EUROPEAN UNION. (Oxford University Press, 1995): pp. 51, 253, 263. Anderson also asserts: "The Secretariat-General is responsible for daily management of Interpol and is not accountable to the governments of member states. (p. 51.) Interpol has not been accountable to a separate agency for most of its functions. (p. 253) Interpol has long been characterized by informality and 'ad hocery' at worst. In such barren terrain, there is little opportunity for robust systems of accountability to take root. (263) Interpol has not been accountable to a separate agency for most of its functions."

Originally posted by cerebus On a hillside in rural Japan, Bannon was in a vicious fight with a rice farmer.3 The baseball bat Bannon had been using as a weapon broke in half during the struggle, but he managed to take the blunt end and ram it into his opponent's throat, bringing him to the ground.

Originally posted by cerebus On a joint assignment, Bannon fell in love with French counter-terrorist agent Sidelle Rimbaud.8 They planned on marriage; she was killed in a firefight with North Korean child smugglers and terrorists in Marseilles.

Originally posted by cerebus Combined, these clandestine operatives have saved over 300 children and killed hundreds of slavers, pornographers and terrorists.

Originally posted by cerebus the man and his South Korean partner step inside the two remaining guards' AK rifles and deliver quick, efficient blows to kill the North Koreans. They are wrapped in Kevlar, the Korean carries a Heckler & Koch Mark 23 .45 ACP pistol; his companion a Beretta 92FS 9mm. Communicating with signals developed over years of training,

Here are edited paragraphs from the court case referred to in the article. Notice how one important sentence, which I will put in brackets, was not mentioned in the article. To make this decision fit I removed nearly all the legal argument.

This is a defamation action commenced in January 1977 by Leon Steinberg, a United States citizen residing in Florida, against the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) and Interpol's Secretary General. Headquartered outside Paris in Saint Cloud, France, Interpol was organized in 1923 to promote mutual assistance and facilitate communications among criminal police authorities in different countries. n1 Steinberg alleges that Interpol published a document in the United States and in 125 other countries erroneously describing him as a wanted international criminal.

n1 Interpol is composed of member countries represented by their law enforcement officials. The United States is not a party to any international agreement or treaty defining Interpol's status. According to a Report of the Comptroller General on United States involvement in Interpol, some have referred to the organization as "intergovernmental," others call it "private" or "nongovernmental."

[Interpol carries on no investigations but "distributes and coordinates the free flow of information between law enforcement entities throughout the world." Brief of Amicus Curiae United States of America at 6.] {If they don't carry out investigations do they just hire contract killers? SB}

Steinberg delivered process in the District of Columbia to United States officials maintaining liaison with Interpol, and in France, to Interpol's Secretary General at his residence. Interpol and its Secretary General did not acknowledge service and have not appeared in the action. However, on the suggestion of the United States, appearing as amicus curiae, the district court, in February 1980, dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

The district court expressed sympathy with Steinberg's jurisdictional arguments observing:

Interpol appears to occupy a rather ambiguous and shadowy existence in this country. It claims not to exist in the United States, yet it disseminates information here, maintains close liaison with United States law enforcement authorities, is in effect represented in court by the U.S. Department of Justice and, if the complaint is to be believed -- as it must be for present purposes -- defames American citizens in the United States as well as elsewhere.
Nonetheless, the district court read our decision in Sami v. United States, 617 F.2d 755, 758-60 (D.C. Cir. 1979), as according Interpol blanket immunity "from the reach of American tribunals." It therefore remitted Steinberg "to whatever relief he may be able to secure from the Court of Appeals or from the Congress."

We reverse the judgment dismissing the complaint and direct reinstatement of the action. In extending the Sami ruling as to Interpol beyond the bounds of that controversy, n2 the district court, tracking the position urged by the United States as amicus curiae, obscured a distinction important to analysis of issues concerning jurisdiction over persons in modern American law.n2

While affirming the dismissal of the action against Interpol, the court in Sami reversed the summary judgment dismissing the action against the United States. In this case, Interpol and its Secretary General are the sole defendants.

Sami, to the extent the complaint cited Interpol as a defendant, involved an attempt to invoke general, "all purpose" jurisdiction. Plaintiff in that imbroglio stemming from a marital breakdown was a citizen of Afghanistan employed at the International Monetary Fund in Washington, D.C. He left the country with his two children in violation of a Florida court order, and was arrested by German authorities in Franfkfurt. His presentations in the litigation identified no communication, here or abroad, during the episode about which he complained that emanated from Interpol itself. The plaintiff in Sami alleged that Interpol was "doing business" in the District of Columbia. n3

I. THE EPISODE IN SUIT

Steinberg's complaint identifies an Interpol document, titled "Blue International Notification 500/59-A3674," describing him as a wanted international criminal who used the alias "Mark Moscowitz." Interpol widely communicated the Notification, Steinberg alleges, to its liaisons, among them, the United States National Central Bureau [USNCB], now located in the Department of Justice, this country's liaison with Interpol. n5 In the summer of 1975, on learning of the document and Interpol's transmission of it to liaisons, Steinberg asserts, he notified Interpol and twice offered proof that the Notification was erroneous. Despite the proof he offered, Steinberg further states, Interpol continued to publish the Notification and other statements associating Steinberg with "Mark Moscowitz." It did so, according to Steinberg, until late July 1976, when Interpol finally conceded Leon Steinberg was not "Mark Moscowitz." Steinberg seeks general and punitive damages for the substantial injury he alleges he has suffered as a result of the Blue International Notification.

n5 Steinberg does not maintain that USNCB acts as an agent for Interpol or that Interpol has an office here. See Sami v. United States, supra, 617 F.2d at 759-60. He does assert, however, that USNCB has "advertised itself" as "Washington Interpol."

Interpol acted abroad (in France) in transmitting the Notification said to defame Steinberg, and allegedly caused injury to Steinberg in the District and elsewhere when it dispatched the Notification to USNCB and other liaisons. But subsection (a)(4) requires something more. The pivotal question with respect to that subsection's application here is whether Interpol "engages in [a] persistent course of conduct... in the District of Columbia."

It is undisputed that the United States, pursuant to statutory authorization, 22 U.S.C. § 263a, participates in Interpol, that USNCB, situated in the District, acts as this country's Interpol liaison, and that USNCB regularly sends information to and receives information from Interpol. Even without the further Interpol-Washington, D.C., links indicated in discovery pursued in this action (e.g., dealings between Interpol and United States agencies other than USNCB; meetings here attended by Interpol officers), the subsection (a)(4) "persistent course of conduct" proviso is met. Interpol has constant liaison with the nation's capital. Its longstanding ties to this forum, while they do not add up to "doing business" here, n9 suffice to supply the "something more" subsection (a)(4) requires.

Finally, we find no due process infirmity in the application of subsection (a)(4) to this case. Given the mutually beneficial relationship between Interpol and the United States, and the regular contacts Interpol has with this country and District, we perceive no unfairness to the defendants in requiring them to appear and interpose an answer to Steinberg's complaint. n10 Nor is there any suggestion that adjudication in the District would intrude upon the sovereignty of another nation or state of the United States. Taking into account the nature and quality of the alleged act and tortious injury, "the convenient administration of justice in all its aspects, including alternative forums," and Steinberg's interest, as a United States citizen and domiciliary, in vindicating his reputation as an individual without a criminal record, we hold that, whatever defenses Interpol and its Secretary General may have to the claim in suit, the litigation is not barred at the threshold for lack of in personam jurisdiction. n13

n10 While the United States, as amicus curiae, successfully moved to quash service on USNCB on the ground that it is not an agent of Interpol, no assertion has been made that Interpol lacks notice of this litigation.

We further note the acknowledgement by the United States that a "blanket exemption for governmental contacts no longer exists in the District of Columbia" (Brief of Amicus Curiae United States of America at 15), and the absence of any specification by the United States of a First Amendment basis for exempting Interpol from suit here. See Rose v. Silver, 394 A.2d 1368, 1374 (D.C. 1978) ("First Amendment provides the only principled basis" for "government contacts" exemption), petition for rehearing en banc denied, 398 A.2d 787 (D.C. 1979).

n13 Our decision is based on the record as it now stands. By clarifying that the decision in Sami does not impede the assertion of personal jurisdiction over Interpol in this case, we do not intend to foreclose any defense, jurisdictional or otherwise, Interpol itself, or its Secretary General, may raise predicated on material not before us. Cf . Rose v. Silver, supra, 394 A.2d at 1372 n.5.

What we need is for someone with South Korean connections to check out his degree claims from this country. Isn't he claiming a history Ph.D from a South Korean University?

Answer: yes he is.

"Bannon's qualifications were easy to confirm: Kim, Woo-Chul, Vice Chancellor for the Office of Academic Affairs at Seoul National University, confirmed that Bannon graduated with a doctoral degree in history in 1994. "The following year," he added, "his dissertation was given the Korean War Memorial Museum's Sejong Award for Excellence." Kim also confirmed Bannon's master level degree in computer science. I also flipped through Bannon's books (i.e. INTRODUCTION TO WINDOWS), translations of Korean and Japanese texts in The University of Hawaii's literary journal, HAWAII PACIFIC REVIEW, SNU's ASIAN PACIFIC QUARTERLY, and about seventy issues of various martial arts magazines"

Whats he doin in rural japan?
Whys he fighting a rice farmer with a baseball bat?
How would a japanese rice farmer know Hung Gar ?
How could he tell it was hung gar?
The way he killed the guy is suspicious too

"As at 31 December 2003, Interpol (General Secretariat, including Sub-Regional Bureaus) employed 463 international civil servants of 68 different nationalities. A third of these were either seconded or detached by their national law enforcement administrations in the 181 member states; the remaining two thirds are administrative staff recruited under contract directly by the organization."

So if I understand Bannon's claims, while Interpol has an overt size of roughly 500 people. He was part of a section that employed up to 250 people which never made their books. Even assuming that only say 100 of them were working for Interpol at a given time, it seems incrediable to think that they would have such a large unit doing wet affairs.

Does that mean they currently have 463 members, or thats the cumulative number of employees they've had? Any case, I'm sure he would respond that not all 250 were officially or even directly employed by the organization.